Allowed

Pravin Manilal Sanghvi and Anr. v. State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Bombay HC17 Jul 2023APL/171/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Bombay High Court quashed two FIRs filed on opposite sides of the same dispute between the parties. Upon hearing counsel and accepting consent affidavits and original Aadhar cards, the Court held that no purpose would be served by keeping the prosecution alive. The FIRs and consequential proceedings were set aside, subject to the payment of court costs.

What did the court decide?

The FIRs bearing C.R. No.283 of 2017 and C.R.No. 40 of 2015, along with consequential proceedings, were quashed and set aside. The petitioners/applicants must pay Rs.10000 each to Kirtikar Law Library

Pravin Manilal Sanghvi and Anr. Vs State of Maharashtra and… — Cheque Dishonour | Bombay HC (2023)

¶1

Chitra Sonawane. WP-1442-2018.doc

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO.1442 OF 2018

¶4

Bharat Mithalal Nagori Digitally signed by CHITRA Age:57 years, Occ:Business, CHITRA SANJAY SANJAY SONAWANE Office at:161/1, Shiv Sagar SONAWANE Date: 2023.08.25 Co-operative Society, Ganesh 12:33:07 +0530 Khind Road, Near 1 Modibaug, Shivaji Nagar, Pune-411016. … Petitioner.

¶5

Vs.

¶6

1.State of Maharashtra
Through the Senior Inspector of
Police, Khadak Police Station,
Pune.

¶7

2.Mahendra Manilal Sanghvi
Adult, Occ: Business,
R.at 53/B, New Timber Market,
Bhawani Peth, Pune-411042.

¶8

…
Respondents.

¶9

ALONGWITH

¶10

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.171 OF 2022

¶11

1.Pravin Manilal Sanghvi
Age 56 yrs, Occ:Business
R/at 53/B, New Timber Market,
Bhawani Peth, Pune-411042.

¶12

2.Sanjay Shivpujan Upadhyay
Age: 39 yrs, Occu: Service,
R/at 497, New Timber Market,

¶13

Page No. 1 of 5 ____________________________________________ 17 July 2023.

¶14

Chitra Sonawane. WP-1442-2018.doc

¶15

Bhawani, Pune-411042.

¶16

…
Applicants.

¶17

Vs.

¶18

1.The State of Maharashtra
2.Mr Bharat Mithalal Nagori
Age 60 yrs, Occu:Business;
R/at Flat no.B-804, Ganga Ishanya,
Sr.No.19A/3A, Near Shankar
Maharaj Math, Dhankawadi,
Pune-411043

¶19

….Respondents.

¶20

Mr Pankaj Das for Petitioner in W.P.1442/2018 and for
Respondent No.2 in Cri.Application No.171/2022.

¶21

Mr Adwait Bhonde for Respondent No.2 in WP
No.1442/2018 and for Appellant in Cri.Application
No.171/2022.

¶22

Mrs S. D. Shinde, APP for State in both matters.

¶23

 CORAM: Nitin W. Sambre
 & R.N.Laddha, JJ.

¶24

 DATE : 17 July, 2023.

¶25

Order ( Per R.N.Laddha, J.)

¶26

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶27

2. Rule. The Rule is made returnable forthwith, at the
request and with the consent of the parties.

¶28

Page No. 2 of 5 ____________________________________________ 17 July 2023.

¶29

Chitra Sonawane. WP-1442-2018.doc

¶30

3. The Criminal Writ Petition No.1442 of 2018 is filed for
quashing the FIR bearing C.R. No.283 of 2017, dated 6 July
2017, registered at Khadak Police Station, Pune, for the
offences punishable under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 471
of the Indian Penal Code and the proceedings arising from it.

¶31

4. The Criminal Application No.171 of 2022 is filed for
quashing the FIR bearing C.R.No. 40 of 2015, dated
25.3.2015, registered at Lashkar Police Station, Pune, for the
offences punishable under Sections 447, 448, 427, 506 r/w 34
of the Indian Penal Code and the consequential proceedings.

¶32

5.The Applicants and Respondents in the aforesaid matters
stated that due to misunderstanding, the impugned FIRs were
filed against each other. They submit that the matter is
amicably settled between them.

¶33

6. The Applicants and Respondents in these applications are present before the Court and are identified by their respective Counsel. In Criminal Writ Petition No.1442 of 2018, Respondent No.2-Complainant Mahendra Manilal Sanghvi, and in Criminal Application No.171 of 2022, Respondent No2-Complainant Bharat Mithalal Nagori, have tendered their consent affidavits. When questioned, the Page No. 3 of 5 ____________________________________________ 17 July 2023.

¶34

Chitra Sonawane. WP-1442-2018.doc

¶35

Petitioners and the Respondents in these matters state that
they have settled their dispute and consent to the quashing of
the FIRs filed against each other. Learned APP has verified
their original Aadhar cards.

¶36

7.It is submitted that no purpose would be served by
keeping the prosecution alive, given the settlement between
the parties. The learned Counsel for the parties submitted
that these cases are squarely covered by the law laid down by
the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Giansingh Vs. State
of Punjab & Anr.1and Narinder Singh & Ors. v/s. State of
Punjab and Anr.2

¶37

8. Considering the nature of the allegations, the nature of
the dispute between the parties and the amicable settlement
between them, and the no objection of the parties in both
these matters, we do not see any impediment in allowing
these cases.

¶38

9. In view of this, the FIR bearing C.R. No.283 of 2017, dated 6 July 2017, registered at Khadak Police Station, Pune, and the proceedings arising from it are quashed and set aside, subject to payment of costs of Rs.10000/- to Kirtikar Law 1 (2012)10 SCC 303.

¶39

2 (2014) 6 SCC 466.

¶40

Page No. 4 of 5 ____________________________________________ 17 July 2023.

¶41

Chitra Sonawane. WP-1442-2018.doc

¶42

Library, Mumbai, by the Petitioner within three weeks from
the date of uploading of this order.

¶43

10. Similarly, the FIR bearing C.R.No.40 of 2015, dated
25.3.2015, registered at Lashkar Police Station, Pune, and
the consequential proceedings arising therefrom are quashed
and set aside, subject to payment of costs of Rs.10000/- to
Kirtikar Law Library, Mumbai, by each of the Applicants
within three weeks from the date of uploading of this order.

¶44

11. Accordingly, the rule is made absolute in the aforesaid
terms, subject to payment of costs as directed above.

¶45

[R.N.Laddha, J.] [Nitin W. Sambre, J.]

¶46

Page No. 5 of 5 ____________________________________________ 17 July 2023.

Pravin Manilal Sanghvi and Anr. v. State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pravin Manilal Sanghvi and Anr. v. State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Nikhil Uday Kumar Singh and Anr. Vs State of Maharashtra

Milind Ramakant Ekbote and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Kasturi Mukherjee Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Shilpa Corporate Holdings Pvt. Ltd. through Its Director Mr Vishnukant Bhutada and Ors. Vs State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Sanjay Madhukar Kochrekar Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Dnyaneshwar Bajirao Darwatkar Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.